Christian leaders dating agency

However, what is generally good is not good in every case. When American imperialism’s hostility to the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to the Ghadafi and Assad regimes (their collaboration with Bush Jr.’s international torture ring notwithstanding), the Western left’s support for the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to American imperialism.

The moment the Syrian and Libyan revolutions demanded imperialist airstrikes and arms to neutralize the military advantage enjoyed by governments over revolutionary peoples, anti-interventionism became counter-revolutionary because it meant To say that the Libyans were fortunate that anti-interventionists were too weak to block, disrupt, or affect NATO’s military campaign would be an understatement.

The “Libyan Winter” proved to be the hottest chapter of the Arab Spring thus far.

Post-War Libya Rebels who stormed Ghadafi’s Tripoli compound were eager to expose his regime’s relationship with imperialist powers and one of their commanders sued the British foreign minister for handing him over to Ghadafi to be tortured, hardly the acts of anyone on the CIA payroll.

4) The proponents of the hijacking theory failed to address the most obvious and urgent question that flowed from their own analysis: what could the Libyans to take their revolution back from NATO’s hijacking?

A hijacking is a struggle for control between legitimate and illegitimate actors where the rogue elements get the upper hand.

(Never forget 9/11.) This was no accident or coincidence.

For them, the Libyan revolution’s constituent elements lost their political independence, initiative, and lifeblood the instant NATO fired its first cruise missile.This image became very popular among Western leftists prior to NATO’s intervention. N.-backed airstrikes constituted foreign intervention, a term they used to describe invasion and other forms of unwanted imperialist meddling.The Western left disregarded the thoughts and feelings of their Libyan comrades and called for an end to NATO airstrikes against Ghadafi’s forces.This conditioned reaction to the broken record of justifications led anti-interventionists to conclude that NATO’s end of the Libyan war would resemble the Afghan and Iraq wars and so their case against intervention was built around the following predictions: 1) Mass civilian casualties due to Iraq or Viet Nam-style aerial bombardment; 2) Foreign invasion/occupation due to imperialist “mission creep”; 3) Future interventions would be easier and more likely elsewhere; 4) A neocolonial regime would be installed in Tripoli as the result of NATO-led “regime change,” the logical conclusion of the “revolution was hijacked” conspiracy theory.1) There was no massive NATO bombardment of civilian targets, there was no Libyan highway of death, no Black Hawk Down, no Wikileaks-style helicopter gunship atrocities.The absence of wanton slaughter of civilians by NATO compelled Ghadafi to collateral damage incidents and civilian funerals and arbitrarily exaggerate the number of civilians killed.